DescentBB

there are, in life, and in reality, VERY FEW absolutes. Truth, like beauty, can be in the eye of the beholder, as reality is a matter of perception. Now, Thorne, I am not saying that a society should live without shared values, or shared ethics, but the key word is SHARED, thus rendering it impossible for one person to determine absolutes for anyone save himself.

No absolute truth... then that in itself cannot be absolutely true. Nothing like having a world-view that invalidates itself.

Shared values and shared ethics as the only standard are simply not good enough. As we see around the U.S., for example, they are subject to an extreme degree of manipulation, which leaves various interrelationships wanting for balance because people are operating on a selfish, emotional playing field which itself can never result in harmony. If consensus were our only hope for morality, and there were no universal truth about what, who, and why we are (obviously not true), then we would be in a sorry position indeed, destined only for strife and various levels of success in groping around to resisting the absolute (oops) confusion of it all.

CUDA wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:[removed]

I wrote:

I can see this thread not ending good.

Told ya

If I have to come back in and clean up personal crap again, this thread will end.

Keep it professional, folks. (Thanks to those who are.)

Now, back on topic, let's return to the question about same/separate body, and the umbilical cord:

For those here arguing any variation of "only the mother has the right", allow me to ask the following question:

Where/when/how does the "right" to the life transfer from the mother to the state?

A. Stage X of development (first neurons fire, first heartbeat, etc.)
B. At birth
C. When the umbilical cord is cut

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say it's a minute before the point you named. What exactly has changed between that minute and the next, that is enough to say "Before now, it was fine to destroy. After now, it's life is worthy of protection." ?

I choose C.

I personally believe that once the mother and child become separate, the already established laws regarding the infant (and therefore separate person) shift toward the state.

Society will crumble without absolutes.

Ferno wrote:I choose C.

Okay.

Since you see physical separation as the fundamental determining factor... does location (inside or outside the womb) matter?

Foil wrote:Now, for the sake of argument, let's say it's a minute before the point you named. What exactly has changed between that minute and the next, that is enough to say "Before now, it was fine to destroy. After now, it's life is worthy of protection." ?

This is just the paradox of the heap. The paradox starts with a heap of sand. Remove one grain of sand. Clearly nothing significant has changed, so the remaining sand still forms a heap. Repeat as necessary until one grain of sand remains. At each step, we've done nothing significant, so the remaining grain of sand still forms a heap, i.e., heaps of sand start at conception.

Driving with 0.0008 BAC is a felony. There's nothing significant between 0.0007999 and 0.0008 to not consider 0.0007999 a felony too. Repeat as necessary. Now rinsing with mouthwash in the morning and driving to work is a felony.

Looking at it from that perspective, I would have to say the only significant event along the entire timeline is conception, cutting the cord is only a transition from dependency on the mother inside the womb to dependency on the mother outside the womb, along a long line of slow development.

Humans are born underdeveloped because of the human brain, so just getting to the outside is really not a significant event.

IMHO

Ferno wrote:I choose C.

I personally believe that once the mother and child become separate, the already established laws regarding the infant (and therefore separate person) shift toward the state.

You'd choose wrong then. Shoot a pregnant woman and kill her, you will be charged with a double homicide

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:I choose C.

I personally believe that once the mother and child become separate, the already established laws regarding the infant (and therefore separate person) shift toward the state.

You'd choose wrong then. Shoot a pregnant woman and kill her, you will be charged with a double homicide

not in all states, and not in any until VERY recently.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:I choose C.

I personally believe that once the mother and child become separate, the already established laws regarding the infant (and therefore separate person) shift toward the state.

You'd choose wrong then. Shoot a pregnant woman and kill her, you will be charged with a double homicide

not in all states, and not in any until VERY recently.

Define recently. This happened back in 2002:

"Scott Peterson, her widower, is being charged both with Laci's slaying, and the slaying of their unborn son, Connor, because California is one of 29 states with so-called fetal homicide laws. "

Why do you try and mitigate by saying "Not in all states"? You could say this if 49 states had the law. Whats the point?

my point, Woody, is that no states had such a law prior to around 1995, iirc.

And how does that pertain to talking about it now?

Because it's a dumb law. We don't charge a pregnant woman that smokes or drinks with fetal abuse do we?

Dumb or not, it is the law. What is really dumb is on the one hand we charge someone with murder of the unborn when they kill the mother an OTOH it is ok to kill the fetus if the mother say's OK to a late term abortion. Dead is dead...no?

Foil wrote:

Ferno wrote:I choose C.

Okay.

Since you see physical separation as the fundamental determining factor... does location (inside or outside the womb) matter?

Outside.

because once it is outside, I classify it as a separate being.

woodchip wrote:And how does that pertain to talking about it now?

it pertains to the central point I have been making in this thread.....ie: ethics aren't absolute, they change and evolve and are based upon shared, agreed-upon values. I am not merely trying to crap on your observation, but state that things change. Prior to 1995, a fetus had exactly ZERO legal standing, today, many areas have changed their collective minds about that.

CobGobbler wrote:Because it's a dumb law. We don't charge a pregnant woman that smokes or drinks with fetal abuse do we?

The fact that you believe it's a "dumb" law, and are willing to offer up that argument doesn't speak well for you character. But to analyze your argument, you're talking potential harm as opposed to certain harm (don't know whether there may be official, legal terms for these). You can't charge a person for something they may or may not have done. You could only enact a law that heads off the possible outcome, in that case. You can't charge someone with assault or battery for discharging a gun in a public place if there is no intent established, and more pertinently if there is no one to prosecute the case (no one was shot, and if there were they didn't come forward). I believe the husband or other relatives probably could make a case against the mother if her activities resulted in permanent damage to the baby. Dumb argument.

woodchip wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Sorry man, I can't make or force a woman to do something with her body. If a women wants to get an abortion, that is solely her decision.

But once she is pregnant, it is no longer "just her" body...now is it.

Well, if they ever figure out ways to implant an unwanted fetus into another person, and then come up with other solutions to support same said unattached to any family baby after it's born, things will be solved. But then all the conservatives would cry out that the cost of transferring the fetus to a new person is too expensive and that this new baby is just another homeless leach on society because the state will probably get stuck with it's care. That may be cruel, but it's what usually happens to babies that are not wanted by their mothers.

funny thing TC, I read all the time about American couples spending 20k to get a baby from China or Russia. Time you think of babies in your scenario as expensive commodities. It's the corporate thing to do.

All im going to say, Once opon a time, there was a dictator named Hitler who convinced the population that a certian group of people called Jews were not real people... and it was ok to kill them!!! Seems to me this is simply the same issue... Doctors under pressure from political leaders scared about the population groth of the 20th century have defined fetus's as not a person, and it is perfectly ok to kill them. Leading to a mass genocide of 50 million persons since they have made it legal to kill your own baby....

As a Christian, i understand that God allowed the overthrow of the Canannites goverment because the people killed thier own childern.... America will no doube face the same fate.

Teddy wrote:All im going to say, Once opon a time, there was a dictator named Hitler who convinced the population that a certian group of people called Jews were not real people... and it was ok to kill them!!! Seems to me this is simply the same issue... Doctors under pressure from political leaders scared about the population groth of the 20th century have defined fetus's as not a person, and it is perfectly ok to kill them. Leading to a mass genocide of 50 million persons since they have made it legal to kill your own baby....

As a Christian, i understand that God allowed the overthrow of the Canannites goverment because the people killed thier own childern.... America will no doube face the same fate.

what a complete pantload. How do you address the fact that abortion has been going on forever, and do you plan on supporting the mothers and children if it is completely outlawed? I know, we can think of them as saleable commodities(someone else's words above, paraphrased), but really. Why is it that something like this has to come down to a 'God said' sort of thing anyway?

callmeslick wrote:what a complete pantload. How do you address the fact that abortion has been going on forever, and do you plan on supporting the mothers and children if it is completely outlawed? I know, we can think of them as saleable commodities(someone else's words above, paraphrased), but really. Why is it that something like this has to come down to a 'God said' sort of thing anyway?

A social system supported by the destruction of life is living on borrowed time by any just measure. It's pretty low to throw support of women and children for which no one else bears responsibility in someone's face because they insist that killing the children is wrong. Perhaps you should take your energy out on the social diseases and failed public policies which contribute to the problem, instead of altering reality to support a grotesque solution to an unresolved problem--children outside of the context of a sound family structure.

It's not "God said", it's God will...

woodchip wrote:funny thing TC, I read all the time about American couples spending 20k to get a baby from China or Russia. Time you think of babies in your scenario as expensive commodities. It's the corporate thing to do.

Americans don't want older children, who make up the majority of homeless foster children put up for adoption, all they want are babies to adopt. I think that's selfish and shortsighted and throwing many needy children under the bus.

But hey, if a rape victim wants to make a quick 20K, she's free to do so. Twisted Americans, little babies as commodities.

Teddy wrote:All im going to say, Once opon a time, there was a dictator named Hitler who convinced the population that a certian group of people called Jews were not real people... and it was ok to kill them!!! Seems to me this is simply the same issue... Doctors under pressure from political leaders scared about the population groth of the 20th century have defined fetus's as not a person, and it is perfectly ok to kill them. Leading to a mass genocide of 50 million persons since they have made it legal to kill your own baby....

As a Christian, i understand that God allowed the overthrow of the Canannites goverment because the people killed thier own childern.... America will no doube face the same fate.

equating abortion to the holocaust.

L A W L.

I love watching everyone dance around the truth of the matter.

PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

if you choose to have unprotected sex you take a chance of getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. then to take a life and make no mistake abortion IS the taking of life. "viable" or not a fetus is alive. Every knows that if you have sex there is a chance you'll get pregnant. too many people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and because they get pregnant or get someone pregnant. it has become an "Inconvenience" for them I can't afford it right now. or I'm just not ready for a child. let me tell you. you are NEVER ready for a child. Be an adult. take responsibility for your actions.

You might not ever be ready to have a child, but you can damn sure bet your ready for them to move out

All joking aside, I agree with Cuda here. Most abortions are performed on the irresponsible. I myself would pragmatically agree with abortions ONLY in the case of rape or incest. Otherwise, you made your bed, lay in it.

flip wrote:but you can damn sure bet your ready for them to move out

Amen

Personal responsibility, meh.

I guess I'm just a cold-hearted bastard because I could care less about the little fetuses. This is a free country, people should be able to do what they want. Isn't that the idea of small government?

CUDA wrote:I love watching everyone dance around the truth of the matter.

PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

if you choose to have unprotected sex you take a chance of getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. then to take a life and make no mistake abortion IS the taking of life. "viable" or not a fetus is alive. Every knows that if you have sex there is a chance you'll get pregnant. too many people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and because they get pregnant or get someone pregnant. it has become an "Inconvenience" for them I can't afford it right now. or I'm just not ready for a child. let me tell you. you are NEVER ready for a child. Be an adult. take responsibility for your actions.

Tell that to quite a few uninformed and clueless teenagers. One can't have "personal accountability" unless one is educated with all the facts. Maybe if we had comprehensive, detailed sex ed, they'd know better.

http://teens.webmd.com/news/20120119/cd ... t-pregnant

tunnelcat wrote:Tell that to quite a few uninformed and clueless teenagers. One can't have "personal accountability" unless one is educated with all the facts.

facts like what?? that unprotected Sex will lead to pregnancy?? hell TC, they taught us that in the 60's + 70's....are you telling me you didn't know that information when you started having sex???

Maybe if we had comprehensive, detailed sex ed, they'd know better.

bull★■◆●!!!! unprotected sex leads to pregnancy. what part of that don't people understand????


If parents would teach their kids about being responsible for their actions and society didn't teach kids to blame others for their problems, then you wouldn't need the public school system to act as surrogate parents. stop making excuses for bad behavior..

CUDA, you're making the assumption that all teenagers will wait to have sex until they're married. Not in real world of raging hormones. When I was a teenager, I was pretty clueless as to the inner workings of the reproductive system. I learned quite a bit in junior high when they had a special sex ed class in Home Ec. The boys had theirs in Shop Class. But it was very prudish and uninformed back in the sixties. Stuff like that still made teachers uncomfortable. It needed far more information to be useful, like what types of protection worked well and the risks and probabilities of failure, which they all have. I watched one of Dan Savage's MTV college tours called Savage U. He talked to all sorts of college aged kids about their sex lives and you wouldn't believe the number that still had unprotected sex because they thought that they were being "safe" by depending some sort of "rhythm method", or the "pull out before you ejaculate" method. Most of them didn't even know you could transmit an STI through oral sex. Very wrong assumptions that could have been remedied with good information and education. As for me, I didn't have sex until I got married in my twenties. I was a chaste teenager.

Teens can have some pretty strange ideas about when it's safe to have sex by they way. They hear a lot of incorrect things from their peers, books, online, etc., like certain times of the month are safe, certain positions can keep the sperm from going up into the uterus, certain preparations can kill sperm and whatnot. Most of it bunk, but they usually don't find that out until it's too late and someone is pregnant or infected with an STI. The parents should be teaching their kids about sex and what's safe and not safe, but a lot of the time, the parents are just as clueless, or embarrassed to have the talk. Pregnancy isn't the only risk either. They need to talk about STI's as well. School is still the best place to teach them at least the basics and that any unprotected sex will usually end in pregnancy. If they're going to do it, and quite a few will, they need to know about some form of protection. I agree that the best prevention is no sex until marriage, but that's not the reality of life. If you want NO ABORTIONS or STI's, teach the kids abstinence first, protection methods second, and that all protection is not foolproof.

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, you're making the assumption that all teenagers will wait to have sex until they're married. Not in real world of raging hormones. When I was a teenager, I was pretty clueless as to the inner workings of the reproductive system. I learned quite a bit in junior high when they had a special sex ed class in Home Ec. The boys had theirs in Shop Class. But it was very prudish and uninformed back in the sixties. Stuff like that still made teachers uncomfortable. It needed far more information to be useful, like what types of protection worked well and the risks and probabilities of failure, which they all have. I watched one of Dan Savage's MTV college tours called Savage U. He talked to all sorts of college aged kids about their sex lives and you wouldn't believe the number that still had unprotected sex because they thought that they were being "safe" by depending some sort of "rhythm method", or the "pull out before you ejaculate" method. Most of them didn't even know you could transmit an STI through oral sex. Very wrong assumptions that could have been remedied with good information and education. As for me, I didn't have sex until I got married in my twenties. I was a chaste teenager.

Teens can have some pretty strange ideas about when it's safe to have sex by they way. They hear a lot of incorrect things from their peers, books, online, etc., like certain times of the month are safe, certain positions can keep the sperm from going up into the uterus, certain preparations can kill sperm and whatnot. Most of it bunk, but they usually don't find that out until it's too late and someone is pregnant or infected with an STI. The parents should be teaching their kids about sex and what's safe and not safe, but a lot of the time, the parents are just as clueless, or embarrassed to have the talk. Pregnancy isn't the only risk either. They need to talk about STI's as well. School is still the best place to teach them at least the basics and that any unprotected sex will usually end in pregnancy. If they're going to do it, and quite a few will, they need to know about some form of protection. I agree that the best prevention is no sex until marriage, but that's not the reality of life. If you want NO ABORTIONS or STI's, teach the kids abstinence first, protection methods second, and that all protection is not foolproof.

I'll stand by my original statement

I wrote:PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

teach your children some.
well golly gee Dad, I didn't know that if you had sex you could get pregnant. you never taught me about the Birds and the bee's

who'da thunk it

I told each of my daughters that Guys want one thing and will lie, cheat, and steal to get it. don't give it up easily
and i told each of my sons that if they ever did anything to disgrace a young lady that I would personally cut their dicks off and feed it to them.

kewlz

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, you're making the assumption that all teenagers will wait to have sex until they're married. Not in real world of raging hormones. When I was a teenager, I was pretty clueless as to the inner workings of the reproductive system. I learned quite a bit in junior high when they had a special sex ed class in Home Ec. The boys had theirs in Shop Class. But it was very prudish and uninformed back in the sixties. Stuff like that still made teachers uncomfortable. It needed far more information to be useful, like what types of protection worked well and the risks and probabilities of failure, which they all have. I watched one of Dan Savage's MTV college tours called Savage U. He talked to all sorts of college aged kids about their sex lives and you wouldn't believe the number that still had unprotected sex because they thought that they were being "safe" by depending some sort of "rhythm method", or the "pull out before you ejaculate" method. Most of them didn't even know you could transmit an STI through oral sex. Very wrong assumptions that could have been remedied with good information and education. As for me, I didn't have sex until I got married in my twenties. I was a chaste teenager.

Teens can have some pretty strange ideas about when it's safe to have sex by they way. They hear a lot of incorrect things from their peers, books, online, etc., like certain times of the month are safe, certain positions can keep the sperm from going up into the uterus, certain preparations can kill sperm and whatnot. Most of it bunk, but they usually don't find that out until it's too late and someone is pregnant or infected with an STI. The parents should be teaching their kids about sex and what's safe and not safe, but a lot of the time, the parents are just as clueless, or embarrassed to have the talk. Pregnancy isn't the only risk either. They need to talk about STI's as well. School is still the best place to teach them at least the basics and that any unprotected sex will usually end in pregnancy. If they're going to do it, and quite a few will, they need to know about some form of protection. I agree that the best prevention is no sex until marriage, but that's not the reality of life. If you want NO ABORTIONS or STI's, teach the kids abstinence first, protection methods second, and that all protection is not foolproof.

I'll stand by my original statement

I wrote:PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

teach your children some.
well golly gee Dad, I didn't know that if you had sex you could get pregnant. you never taught me about the Birds and the bee's

who'da thunk it

I told each of my daughters that Guys want one thing and will lie, cheat, and steal to get it. don't give it up easily
and i told each of my sons that if they ever did anything to disgrace a young lady that I would personally cut their dicks off and feed it to them.

Well that's all and good. You're still forgetting hormones. If you can teach your kids to override those powerful chemicals, they're stronger than the average human teenager.

But there is another factor at work here. I just watched a new show on the Science Channel called Secret Brain. Apparently, it appears the subconscious mind is a little over optimistic when confronted with life choices. What this translates to is when someone is confronted with a choice, the brain tends to underestimate the negative consequences of any action. In other words, most people will think that the odds of getting a girl pregnant is far less than it actually is. They tend to take the risky chance thinking that they will beat the odds. That show is being repeated tonight at 1:00AM CUDA. You should record it and watch. Quite a fascinating look into how our brain's subconscious unduly influences our conscious decisions.

tunnelcat wrote:Quite a fascinating look into how our brain's subconscious unduly influences our conscious decisions.

I don’t think that was the point the program was making.

CUDA wrote:teach your children some.
well golly gee Dad, I didn't know that if you had sex you could get pregnant. you never taught me about the Birds and the bee's

who'da thunk it

Teaching teenagers the birds and the bees is pretty low priority until we can get Missouri senators up to snuff.

tunnelcat wrote:Well that's all and good. You're still forgetting hormones. If you can teach your kids to override those powerful chemicals, they're stronger than the average human teenager.

But there is another factor at work here. I just watched a new show on the Science Channel called Secret Brain. Apparently, it appears the subconscious mind is a little over optimistic when confronted with life choices. What this translates to is when someone is confronted with a choice, the brain tends to underestimate the negative consequences of any action. In other words, most people will think that the odds of getting a girl pregnant is far less than it actually is. They tend to take the risky chance thinking that they will beat the odds. That show is being repeated tonight at 1:00AM CUDA. You should record it and watch. Quite a fascinating look into how our brain's subconscious unduly influences our conscious decisions.

how does any of that have anything to do with taking responsibility for ones actions?? every one of your responses has been making excuses why people cant control why they do things.
stop making excuses.
people make bad choices all the time. I'm saying if you make a bad choice, don't compound it by making another bad choice. take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and do whats right because it's right.

Well, why don't you come into the world of reality and accept that the human brain is usually under the influence of it's own chemicals most of the time. The frontal cortex sometimes gets overridden no matter how hard we try. If everyone always made the correct choices and didn't fall to their basal and hormonal instincts at times, the world be be a whole different place, wouldn't it? But I don't think God wanted everyone to be little cookie cutter perfect machines, or we wouldn't be very adaptable in a harsh and unforgiving world.

Jeff250 wrote:

CUDA wrote:teach your children some.
well golly gee Dad, I didn't know that if you had sex you could get pregnant. you never taught me about the Birds and the bee's

who'da thunk it

Teaching teenagers the birds and the bees is pretty low priority until we can get Missouri senators up to snuff.

Zing! Ouch!